[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3935-3936]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the continuing 
resolution before the Senate, H. J. Res. 20, to point out some of the 
flaws in the bill. Because we have the potential for a Government 
shutdown, I believe it is my responsibility to vote for the 
legislation.
  I am reluctant to be in the position of voting for a $463 billion 
spending bill with no capability for amendment. We passed 
appropriations bills out of the Senate last year. They reflected the 
Senate's priorities. Yet this measure changes many of the priorities 
that were set in last year's bills, and we haven't had the opportunity 
for hearings, committee markups, or to offer any amendments from the 
floor. That is not the way the Senate has done business, certainly not 
the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee has been 
quite bipartisan throughout the time I have been a member.
  I don't like to see this type of precedent being set. The last time 
Republicans took over from Democrats, there were 11 appropriations 
bills not yet finished. We didn't do a continuing resolution and fill 
up the tree so there couldn't be amendments. We did an Omnibus 
appropriations bill. We debated it for 6 days. We timed it so that 
people had full access to amendments and the process. We had 100 
amendments. That was 2003. I am very concerned about this type of 
process. But we are now 1 day before the end of the previous continuing 
resolution, which means we could see a Government shutdown if we can't 
come to agreement.
  I said last week that we had time for amendments and to confer with 
the House. The amendment I put forward with 27 cosponsors, the 
Hutchison-Inhofe amendment, would have fully restored the $3.1 billion 
that was taken out of military construction that was preparation for 
the movement of troops home from overseas, as well as many other base 
changes that were going to be made. I asked for the restoration of that 
with 27 cosponsors, and my amendment was ruled out of order.
  I know there was bipartisan support for those many military 
construction projects. And since I am the ranking member and previously 
the chairman of that subcommittee, I know how important they are. I 
know they were so important that the chairman of all the services, plus 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote a letter saying: Please do not 
fund with a continuing resolution the military construction projects 
because there will not be enough to fully cover our needs. The 
Secretary of Defense said the same thing.
  We are not going to be able to do what is right for our military 
because $3 billion was taken out of the Senate-passed appropriations 
bill and converted to other projects. It was spread around throughout 
the other agencies, and the military construction was the pay-for. I 
tried to correct that, and I have to say that the distinguished 
majority leader did make an effort to work with the House to make my 
amendment in order. He was not able to do that. I accept that, and I 
accept that he tried. I do believe he tried. I think Senator Reid did 
make an effort. But we have a process here which is not one anyone can 
be proud of; that is, a $463 billion spending bill, taking $3 billion 
away from military construction, putting it into other priorities, and 
not allowing amendments. It is not right, and I protested.
  I am going to vote for the bill. I think we have to do it.
  I am very concerned about the NASA funding. There is money taken out 
of the ongoing, very important priority of getting the crew return 
vehicle that is the successor to the shuttle online on time. I cannot 
imagine we would take money out of that program, which was done in this 
bill, which would potentially delay us years down the road from having 
the crew return vehicle that is set to replace the shuttle. The shuttle 
is set to go out of existence in 2010, possibly 2011. We need the 
shuttle to finish the space station. But the Administrator, Michael 
Griffin, has said we need to retire the shuttle as soon as possible. We 
have to finish the space station. The new crew return vehicle will not 
be able to carry big parts up to the space station. It will not be 
heavy enough. But we need to close the gap so we don't have a time when 
the United States is not able to send people into space, and that is 
what is going to happen if the crew return vehicle is not able to be 
produced when the shuttle goes out of existence.
  I think we are putting NASA in jeopardy. I met with Senator Bill 
Nelson, the chairman of the NASA Subcommittee, of which I am ranking 
member. We met with Michael Griffin and members of the staff of the 
Appropriations Committee who assured Michael Griffin he would have the 
ability to transfer money out of other accounts to go there. But I am 
concerned about it. Why was the money moved out of that account in the 
first place? That doesn't seem like the proper way to do business. But 
we are going to watch that very carefully.
  Senator Nelson and I are very bipartisan in our approach to NASA. We 
both believe it is most important for us to have human spaceflight 
capabilities for the United States of America. It is a national 
security issue as well as a scientific issue that we stay in the 
forefront of science, and the lead we have had by going into space 
early is unmatched by any other country. Our lead is so important for 
our national security and the dominance we have had in space. The 
ability we have had to guide missiles from space is a phenomenal 
advantage America has been able to achieve by conquering space. If we 
don't have the ability to put humans in space for some period of time--
3 to 5 years--what are we going to do? Are we going to go and beg the 
Russians? Who knows, by 2010 or 2011, whether the Russians would even 
give us space on their shuttles, much less give us the accommodations 
we would need and perhaps the secrecy we would need.
  I am concerned about this bill. If we were not facing a potential 
shutoff of the Government and many important programs, including 
benefits to veterans and military pay, I would vote no, just as I did 
vote against cloture because I thought we still had time to do this 
right. We should have had time to do it right, but we didn't, so we are 
faced with the Hobson's choice of shutting down the Government or 
trying to do this bill in the right way with no amendments. I don't 
consider it a good choice.
  Mr. President, I will vote for the bill. I do not think this is the 
Senate's finest hour. I do believe the Senate majority leader made an 
effort. I think he heard the merits of our bipartisan amendment with 27 
sponsors. I hope he will, as he has promised, work with us to get the 
full funding of these military construction projects in the 
supplemental appropriations bill. However, we have the chance right 
now. I hate to give up the bird in the hand for one that might see some 
delays, that might see many changes. I will be right on top of it. As 
the ranking member of this subcommittee, I will certainly expect that 
we have the ability to amend

[[Page 3936]]

the appropriations bill that comes forward as a supplemental, just as 
we have always had in this body. I hope we will not have to worry that 
we are going to have a filled up amendment tree and cloture filed on 
the supplemental appropriations bill.
  We can do business the right way in the Senate. We have for most of 
the years of this great institution. I will be disappointed if we start 
seeing us bring bills to the floor and not allow amendments--there is 
no reason to have 100 Members if that is the way we are going to do 
business. We could just have 51 or we could just have 1 if all the 
decisions are going to be made in that fashion.
  That is not what the Constitution intended, and I hope it is 
certainly not what the new majority intends as a way to do business.
  I am going to hold out hope that the word is kept, that we can have 
the amendment process, that we can fund the military construction 
projects that are so important for quality of life and training 
capabilities for the great men and women who are serving our country 
and putting themselves forward to give up their lives, if necessary, 
for freedom for future generations of Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________